The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

This is as bad as the Holocaust denial!If Romila Thapar continues to write history, In a few years, Today's Terror in Europe would be attributed to the evil Hindus and their caste system in our school text books....

One of the world's most ancient religions is a force in modern Indian politics. Hinduism, the avowed faith of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, forms the philosophical bedrock of his ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). It is also the religion of 80 percent of India's nearly 1.3 billion people, making it the third-largest faith tradition globally, after Christianity and Islam. Of course, despite its overwhelming demographic presence, Hinduism never became India's official religion. Instead, India, as outlined in its constitution, has remained an officially secular nation, home to a dizzying array of philosophies and interpretations, movements and sects, and significant communities of religious-minority Muslims, Christians and Sikhs. The architects of the secular and pluralistic concept of Indian nationhood that sought to embrace this diversity were Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister. The Indian National Congress (INC) party that they led has generally followed, if not perfectly, the founders' philosophy to this day.However, in recent months a surging wave of Hindu nationalism has challenged this bedrock philosophy, touching off a raging national debate about the fundamental nature of India's political identity. This so-called intolerance debate, which has pitted traditional pluralism against a more strident, conservative, religious-based conception of Indian nationhood, has counted among its controversies the February arrest of doctoral student Kanhaiya Kumar, a political activist, on charges of sedition. The arrest sparked nationwide protests, with activists accusing the BJP of undermining democracy and free speech by imposing a divisive and heavy-handed brand of right-wing Hindu nationalism.According to its more hard-line proponents, Hinduism should supplant secularism as the guiding principle of Indian society. Taken to its extreme, this would entail the political and cultural subordination of the country's Christian and Muslim populations. While this is unlikely to happen in the near term, even a partial implementation of this vision is cause for concern in a country whose history is punctuated by gruesome episodes of religious violence — often between its Hindu majority and Muslim minority. The intensifying clash between the philosophies and the resulting political ramifications will undermine Modi's already languishing reform agenda, deepen the country's political polarization, and temper economic growth this year.

One of the most coherent responses to British colonialism in India in the early 20th century came from the Hindu right. Some Hindus believed that the decentralized nature of their religion had enabled outside powers, including the Mughal and British empires, to rule India for a combined 421 years until independence in 1947. In 1925, an Indian doctor named K.B. Hedgewar formed the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to promote a more centralized and assertive interpretation of Hinduism. The RSS believed that the 1947 partition of India that created Pakistan exemplified the inadequacies of Nehru's secular policies, leading India to sacrifice a part of its territory to appease Muslims. The RSS feared that Indian secularists would further partition the nation to give other minorities self-determination, leading to the disintegration of the holy land.Modi embodies the past, present and future of the Hindu nationalist movement. When he was 8 years old, Modi joined the RSS youth wing and became a full-time volunteer at 17. The role that Hindu nationalists play in Modi's constituency explains in part the difficulty he has had in advancing his economic reform policies. Broadly, the membership of the BJP can be divided into two wings: those with pragmatic concerns and the ones focused on religion. To maintain the support he needed to reach office, he must balance the interests of the two. Business owners and middle-class party members are generally most interested in economic reform. Ideological and religious-minded Hindu voters, while also concerned with economics, skew toward social and cultural issues.Modi's strategic exploitation of Hindu nationalism will likely continue. Currently, the BJP holds a majority in the lower house of parliament. But if Modi is to pass the land, labor and tax reform needed to stimulate economic growth and provide jobs for the 1 million people entering the market every month, he needs to increase his party's representation in parliament's upper house, where the opposition holds a large-enough voting bloc to block legislation. To gain the majority, the BJP must win state assembly elections.

There are five such elections scheduled this year. However, the lack of progress on major economic reform means that the BJP will feel compelled to campaign on issues important to Hindu nationalists instead. The BJP has already raised the issue of Muslim migration into Assam state, which holds elections next month. Of course, Modi recognizes that by taking this approach, he will deepen political polarization and empower the INC, which will exploit the inevitable backlash arising from these campaign tactics, using it as political cover to block legislation without appearing to be obstructionist. But this is a price he is willing to pay to win elections.The euphoria surrounding Modi's 2014 election to prime minister has waned, and the challenges of governing a nation as fragmented and diverse as India have endured. In the end, Modi will choose politics before economics and aim to preserve his voter base by appeasing both his party's pragmatic and ideological wings. He will be unable to advance his key pieces of economic reform this year, suggesting that the Indian economy, which grew at a 7.5 percent annual rate in 2015, will not reach the 8 percent growth desired by some officials this year. Moreover, Hindu nationalist sentiment will not dwindle, but rather flare up during the state assembly election campaigns. Modi will seek to temper these sentiments by offering occasional words of support, such as his remarks on the peaceful nature of Islam at the recent World Sufi Forum.The pluralistic and tolerant side of Modi's faith is perhaps best expressed through an ancient Hindu verse that reads "truth is one, but the sages call it by many names." But if Hindu nationalism continues to grow under the BJP, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh might be the name that matters most in India.

Protests by Indians averted an attempt by certain Left-leaning academicians and scholars to dissolve India's unique identity under a larger South Asian one in US school text books. The California Department of Education's Instructional Quality Commission (IQC) rejected the academics' suggestions at a public hearing of the matter on March 24.

The suggestion for changes was moved by a group comprising of well-known Leftist scholars like Lawrence Cohen, Thomas Hansen and Sheldon Pollock. The protest began on fears that this was an attack on India's Hindu heritage and its status of being one the most ancient world cultures.

"Congrats to Hindu activists for successfully opposing and contesting the suggestion to replace 'India' by 'South Asia' in textbooks in the USA. The Leftist scholars' bid to undermine India's glorious identity was foiled by young Hindu activists and Hindu Education Foundation in California, USA," RSS spokesperson Manmohan Vaidya said.

"India has its own identity. It is very wrong to deprive India's identity. Activists have rightly carried out a campaign and demonstrated against the move," Vaidya added.

These academics, under the aegis of the South Asia Faculty Group, suggested several changes to the existing curriculum for the teaching of 'History and Social Sciences' of California Textbooks, including recommendations to substitute 'South Asia' for 'Ancient India' or 'India' in the chapters on Ancient India.

They faced stiff opposition in the form of a public movement led by the Right-wing dominated Hindu Education Foundation (HEF) which has an allegiance to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The community's efforts were also supported by a coalition of 20 government officials, including Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and California State Senator Steven M Glazer.

After a huge uproar from the American-Indian community, the IQC rejected the academics' suggestions at a public hearing of the matter on March 24. Among other corrections and edits suggested by the academics, they had also recommended that the sections of Grade-6 book titled 'The Early Civilizations of India' be changed to 'The Early Civilizations of South Asia'.

Earlier this week, a petition signed by over 18,000 people had asked the commission: "Would you presume to deny the reality of India's existence and history, and its deep significance to Indian-American students in California, simply because a few misinformed professors of South Asia Studies wrote you a letter recommending you re-educate California's children in this bizarre manner?"

A large number of students and parents testified at the public hearing of the commission held in Sacramento on March 24 seeking the rejection of these changes.

"India is not just a landmass but a living civilisation. By removing the mention of India as a civilisation, my identity as an Indian-American is being sought to be erased," Vidhima Shetty, a 9th grade student in San Ramon, said during her testimony.

"What we are seeking is dignity" Bill Honig, the Chair of the Subject Matter Committee of the Commission said. Meanwhile, the South Asia Faculty Group has accused the education department of having come under the influence of 'Hindu nationalists'.

In a letter shot to the department on November 18, 2015, the group not only made recommendations after reviewing the curriculum, but also said: "Responding to pressure from Hindu nationalist and community organisations, several deleterious changes have been made to the current version of the framework," adding that, "The current framework also seems to contain added material lacking scientific or scholarly validity." Need to be on constant vigil against these shcolarly basta*ds

These same "academics" openly call for Marxism and Shariah and would suck the communist and muslim d*ck all night long. Maybe if a few "Hindu Nationalists" (whatever that means) knocked out a few towers in some unnamed american city, they might get a distinguished position in the american academia as well. Bunch of bast*ds.

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” – George Orwell.

Howard Zinn the famous historian wrote about how mainstream historians lie. And this is what he wrote.

Quote “One can lie about the past, or one can omit facts which might lead to unacceptable conclusion…..

Outright lying or quiet omission takes the risk of discovery which, when made, might arouse the reader to rebel against the writer. To state the facts, however, and then to bury them in a mass of other information is to say to the reader with certain infectious calm: yes, mass murder took place, but it’s not that important — it should weigh very little in our final judgments; it should affect very little what we do in the world.

On 26 November last year, what is today known as Constitution Day, home minister Rajnath Singh described the term “secular” as the “most misused word” in the country’s political discourse. Additionally, he claimed that the country’s founding fathers had found the need for inclusion of secularism as a specifically guaranteed tenet as superfluous to the sustenance of Indian democratic polity.

Singh’s intentions, in making these assertions, were quite clear. This was really an effort at obfuscating what were—and are—grave concerns about the present Indian government’s majoritarian policies, specifically its claim for an Indianness built on a supposed monolithic cultural edifice. The comments quite rightly drew the ire of the opposition.

But while Singh’s goals may have been grossly flagrant, the idea of debating what Indian secularism really means must hardly be frowned upon. After all, secularism, much like equality or liberty, is an interpretive concept.

As it happened, during the early years of independence, and indeed, during the making of India’s Constitution, secularism and its real purport and meaning was a hotly contested topic. The debates during the time centred largely on important conceptions of what religion meant, what the government’s role in religion ought to be, and whether India required a strict wall of separation between the state and religion. The answer to the final question invariably acquired a sense of reasonable consensus among the debaters.

It was clear to most that unlike western notions of the term, the Indian state, even if it adopted a commitment to secularism, simply couldn’t afford to embrace a completely non-interventionist role towards religion. This was because, in India, religion tended to pervade society in a manner that often had serious implications for one’s basic civil rights.

But to what extent must this intervention extend?

Typical debates on secularism today tend to bypass issues concerning the state’s intervention in religious matters, particularly in Hindu temples. Most discussions in popular conversation revolve around what are viewed as core political questions—such as subjects concerning the guarantee from the state of equal co-existence of different religious faiths, the ability of government to bring forth social reform and welfare, and the protection of personal and private rights of minority groups.

Indeed, the manner in which we answer questions raised on each of these issues would inform us greatly on our ability to sustain ourselves as a liberal democracy. But the question of where governmental intervention in religion ought to begin, and where it ought to end, especially in the state’s management and administration of Hindu institutions, is critical to articulating the country’s approach to the freedom of conscience and religion.

For instance, in January 2014, in ruling on the validity of a seemingly perpetual takeover of the Sri Sabanayagar Temple in the town of Chidambaram by the Tamil Nadu government, the Supreme Court said, “Even if the management of a temple is taken over to remedy (an) evil, the management must be handed over to the person concerned immediately after the evil stands remedied. Continuation thereafter would tantamount to usurpation of their proprietary rights or violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution in favour of the persons deprived.”

This process of governmental takeover of Hindu temples is seen by some as a product of a power of supposedly secular management that has been arrogated by the Indian state.

Senior advocates Fali S. Nariman and Rajeev Dhavan once wrote that, through an exercise of this appropriated power, the government has overseen a practical nationalization of religious endowments and temples. This process, in their words, “sits uneasily with both the guarantee of religious freedom and secularism”.

Although, in many ways, the present-day intervention in matters of religious administration has its roots in the British rule, the more general practice predates even the colonial regime.

Numerous historical records attest to the fact that Hindu kings exercised a very particular supervision of Hindu temples. As the P.R. Ganapathi Iyer wrote in his 1918 treatise The Law Relating to Hindu and Mohammedan Endowments, there is little doubt that Hindu kings interfered when there were disputes pertaining to temple affairs.

In fact, in 1887, justice Raymond West of the Bombay high court specifically pointed to such interventions as being a part of the prevailing norm. “Under the native system of Government, though it was looked on as a heinous offence to appropriate to secular purpose the estate that had once been dedicated to pious uses,” the judge wrote, in a case titled Manohar Ganesh Tambekar vs Lakhmiram Govindaram. “The State in its secular executive and judicial capacity habitually intervened to prevent fraud and waste in dealing with religious endowments.” This power of superintendence was, therefore, really seen as being an incident of sovereignty.

Under Muslim administration, too, Ganapathi Iyer points out, the governments of the time saw it as the state’s duty to ensure that all endowments for the support of mosques, Hindu temples, and so forth were “applied according to the real intent and will of the grantor”.

The Mughal rulers, for example, appointed Qadis (Islamic judges) and nominated Mutawallis (trustees) for Wakfs. These Mutawallis were accountable to the Qadis, to ensure the proper management of Wakf property, which were endowments made by Muslims for religious, pious or charitable purposes.

Thus, a general, if not an overarching, power to administer and manage religious and charitable endowments was seen by both Hindu and Muslim rulers as an integral function of the sovereign. Long before 1810, when the British colonial government passed its first official notification assuming this supposed governmental role, the regime undeniably exercised supervisory functions over pious endowments.

Consider this observation by the Madras high court in an 1867 judgement: “The duties of superintendence and the proper appropriation of the endowments of Hindu and Muhammadan temples and religious establishments, of the preservation of the structures of such temples and establishments, and of the management of their affairs, through trustees or managers, were without doubt, we believe,” wrote chief justice Colley Harmon Scotland and justice L.C. Innes, “exercised by the officers of the Local Government indiscriminately long before the Tanjore territory and temples were assumed by the Government.”

This supposedly intrinsic power had further crystallized with the passing of the Bengal Regulation XIX [19] in 1810 and the Madras Regulation VII [7] in 1817. Through these laws, the general management of all endowments of religious establishments in these presidencies—apart from the duty to appoint properly qualified trustees and managers to these foundations—were made binding on the Board of Revenue. The Board, a 1781 creation of the East India Company, had been established to oversee the revenue and business of the institution.

Surprisingly, governmental interventions, at the time, in matters of religious administration were largely welcomed. These regulations were, according to Pran Nath Saraswati, the first Indian judge of the Calcutta high court, “instrumental in saving many of the native endowments from ruin and misappropriation”.

But around the middle of the century, the application of these regulations was withdrawn amid what Saraswati described as “religious scruples”. There were pressures, as it happened, from Christian missionary circles, both in India and in England, against what were perceived as express governmental support for idolatry.

Ultimately, in 1863, the Imperial Legislature enacted a comprehensive law with a view to continuing the fine work that the Board of Revenue had performed under earlier regulations.

But the new legislation proved highly ineffective. Its scope was rather more limited, and it relied not on executive powers over religious administration, but on the intervention by courts to set right any maladministration that had been brought to its attention. The result of this law was so disastrous, wrote Saraswati, that it became “practically impossible to compel the managers of endowments to perform their allotted duties with honesty and faithfulness”.

Over the course of the next few decades, several attempts were made by the colonial government to provide for itself a more far-reaching role in the administration of religious endowments. However, the British were deeply conscious of their limits. They didn’t want to be seen as religious reformers, and, with Christian missionaries constantly on their heels, the government also didn’t want to be seen as favouring the Hindus.

But, after the enactment of the Government of India Act, 1919, with purported constitutional changes bringing forth a stricter demarcation between central and provincial legislatures, there was a belief that reforms could flow from the acts of Indian representatives rather than through the British colonial government.

In 1927, as a product of this division, the Madras legislature enacted a religious endowments Act. Unlike earlier regulations that applied to both Hindu and Muslim institutions, the 1927 law was sanctioned with the sole view of overseeing, through a board of commissioners, the management of Hindu institutions. This board was vested with enormous powers; not only could it frame schemes for better administration of temples, it could also, in cases of mismanagement by existing trustees, take over altogether the management of a temple.

The upshot of the law was the commencement of what Nariman and Dhavan now describe as the nationalization of the Hindu religion. Once the state assumed control over the management of a temple, it was simply loath to privatizing this power.

Just over two decades later, when the Indian Constitution was adopted, the ability of the state to intervene in any purportedly secular affair of a religion, as had been the norm for several centuries, was seen not as antithetical to secularism, but as necessary for guaranteeing a more egalitarian society.

Unlike the American constitution, which prescribes a strict wall of separation, what India’s Constitution demands is, in political theorist Rajeev Bhargava’s telling description, the maintenance of a “principled distance” between the state and religion.

Therefore, when, in 1951, the Madras government introduced a new Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the law was predominantly viewed by the Supreme Court as being in consonance with both the Constitution’s bare text and its secular ideals.

This law, however, had accorded the state government exceedingly wide powers of interference. Unlike the earlier British-era enactments, which provided for a general supervision of Hindu endowments through a statutory board of commissioners, the new legislation virtually vested the administration of Hindu religious and charitable institutions in a governmental department.

The commissioner appointed by the government could, under the 1951 law, frame and settle a “scheme”, if he or she had reason to believe that a religious institution was mismanaging the resources placed under its care, or was being run contrary to the purposes for which it was founded.

“It is no exaggeration,” wrote Professor Donald E. Smith, an early chronicler of Indian secularism, “to assert that the commissioner for Hindu religious endowments, a public servant of the secular state, today exercises far greater authority over the Hindu religion in Madras state than the archbishop of Canterbury does over the Church of England.”

Smith also sought to brush aside the argument that the commissioner and his appointees merely exercised control over secular functions as being “simply untenable”. “When a deputy commissioner sanctions the expenditure of surplus temple funds for the establishment of orphanages rather than for the propagation of the religious tenets of the institution, he is dealing as much religion as he is with finances,” he wrote. “Behind this preference lies a whole set of religious assumptions which are in effect being imposed on the temple trustees.”

The imprimatur given to the Madras law by the Supreme Court saw the heralding of several new laws across India. In 1959, after the reorganization of the southern states, the Tamil Nadu government repealed the Madras law of 1951 and enacted a new law that today virtually serves as a model for the country.

At the time when the 1959 law was being debated, The Hindu newspaper claimed in an editorial that the proposed enactment “sought to tighten further the hold of government over the temples and other religious institutions in the state, under the guise of better management and regulation, so that these stood virtually nationalised, functioning as a department of government and subject to all the vicissitudes of party politics in a secular parliamentary democracy”.

The newspaper’s claims, some would argue, have since proved prescient. The collective result of the various laws establishing an overarching power to manage Hindu institutions has seen a staggering takeover by the government of virtually every Hindu temple of any reasonable note.

For example, as scholar Pratap Bhanu Mehta has previously noted, the Andhra Pradesh government alone administers more than 30,000 temples, in 2003, with the scope of its endowments body extending beyond the simple governance of property rights to include the selection and appointment of priests and the proper administration of rituals.

Many see this intervention as a usurpation of Hindu endowments for the benefit of the government, and as being opposed to all tenets of what constitute a “principled separation” between the state and the Hindu religion. At the same time, others argue that the singling out of Hindu endowments neither violates the Constitution’s text nor the larger guarantee of a neutral form of secularism.

Bhargava, for example, maintains that “principled distance allows for differential treatment”, so long as state intervention can be justified on the grounds that it “promotes freedom, equality, or any other value integral to secularism”. (How come the sickular governments have never tried to intervene to promote freedom and equality by changing certain Muslim and Christian laws? On the contrary the scam tainted Rajiv Gandhi administration went out of its way to maintain status quo in the Shah Bano case to appease the Muslims)

Most governments argue that, in taking over the management of a Hindu temple, their intentions are embedded precisely in these constitutional values; that their intervention is necessary to bring about social welfare and reform, to correct a history of social inequities.

Would the privatization, so to speak, of Hindu temples necessarily lead to better management? Would it ensure that these endowments are administered in a manner that conforms to the guarantee of basic civil rights of the various different followers of the Hindu religion?

The state would argue that its intervention in Hindu endowments and trusts is not aimed at reforming the religion out of existence, but rather at ensuring that the administration of the endowment stays true to both the will and the intent of the grantor and the country’s secular ideals. Should the state now leave religion alone? Has it ever? (Its Carte Blanche for the Govt to impose its will when it comes to Hindu Religion but the other religions are strictly off-limits and its adherents have to be appeased and pampered even at the cost of the larger indian interest).

In 60 years of Congress/secular rule India has been reduced to nothing politically - not a member of any strong group.economically- not a member of any trading bloc, confined to SAARC with dwarfsmilitarily - forces can riot with tanks and fly in airshows.

Meanwhile China in 30 years hasPolitically- Weilds veto in UNSC and creates own groups like SCOEconomically- Is #2 and could be #1 world economy.Military - has a nuke arsenal tested multiple times and large forces expanding rapidly to challenge US.

But something different is slowly manifesting–the partitioning of knowledge. The shastra’s and shad dharshanas are being carved up, especially yoga. This is a replay of the 1800s and appropriation of teachings within India.Among the last of ancient dharmic traditions, Hinduism within India has faced assaults from a variety of inimical forces, among the most notable in modern history (circa the last two thousand years) being Islamic invaders of geographic India. But this process started much earlier, initially occurring in the region of Persia, as the Persian’s began to migrate away from their roots[i], possibly the Vedic tradition, and eventually converting to Islam. Islamic invasions of India have had a most notable effect, in essence decimating northern India. One of the most notable is the Mughal Empire which expanded from circa 1526 to circa 1700. While the Mughal Empire is becoming praised by modern scholars for its ‘harmonious relationship’ in India, it forever changed the face of India. It was Shivaji that began a powerful movement that is credited by some as the beginning of the India Independence movement.With time, the British came to be viewed as an occupation, with the British managing most of the industry within India. During this time period, something more insidious was becoming well established within India. It was a more expansive introduction of Christianity; which manifested as a strong establishment of Christianity within India and most notably a strong connection between Christianity and Indian education. It would be correct to say that missionaries of the 1800s used the new tools of translations of the Rg Veda for purposes of conversion, as they referenced H.H. Wilson’s translation in their writings.[ii] Missionaries were quick to note that Brahmans were not familiar with their texts anymore[iii], allowing them to capitalize upon the management of information. While the Islamic occupation of India had a profound impact upon the culture, eventually resulting in India relinquishing land for the formation of an Islamic state—Pakistan, and the partition in 1947 forming Bangladesh which is currently a rapidly growing Islamic state. Christianity would manifest a newly modified model or certainly improve upon an old model within India, one that Hinduism had not seen or encountered previously to the degree in which Christianity would manifest it. The Christian movement would begin to study the sacred texts of the Hindu’s through the assistance of Hindu’s themselves. While it would be correct to say this was not a new concept. As Islam had invested considerable time in translations of texts, and it would be correct that this was often in order to prove the superiority of Islam over Hinduism relative to the Hindu texts. One such example was the translation and commentary of the Bhagavad Gita, referred to as Mir’āt al-h aq ā’iq by Abd al-Rahman Chishti, who believed that the Bhagavad Gita contains portions that were truth, but argued that these portions were Islamic in nature.[iv] Christianity was emerging with their translations at a period that would further complicate and solidify foreign translations of Hindu spiritual texts—the birth of the western scholar. In our current age, the latest manifestation of these religious/scholarly bias scenarios have manifested with claims that Aurangzeb was more of a ‘friend of India and Hindu’s’, evidenced by the copious translations that were made during this period, while ignoring that at least some of these translations were made for the purpose of citing Islam as more superior, as in the case of the previously referenced Mir’āt al-h aq ā’iq. One must always remain mindful that history is often recorded from the view of the victor. The most recent manifestation of the ‘Friend of India’ policy would be Sheldon Pollocks argument that liberation philology should be applied to the dharmic teachings. The strategy suspiciously appears to include what Christianity noted was needed in the 1800s–a workaround the Vedas. Though one cannot speak as to what is within the heart of the scholar.The western mindset has often been that the native people were in reality too ignorant to understand their own teachings. This clearly illustrates the degrading understanding of the spirit of Hinduism within India. Additionally, there is an egregious lack of online historical information that can be easily accessed regarding the history of India, and representation of Indian/Hindu history from the view of the tradition is almost nonexistent or very limited at best. Yet, Hinduism boasts a population of almost 1 billion members. One must ask, ‘Why?’ The result of loss of control over texts has become a model of Hinduism looking to westerners to explain the teachings often ignoring its own traditional teachers and even teachings.Hinduism began a cycle of looking to westerners to explain the teachings often ignoring its own traditional teachers.India’s value of traditional scholars has waned in the modern age. This following of the west illustrates a deep psychological scare culturally that presently afflicts the Hindu mind. This has resulted in a paradox of embracing the teachings while ignoring the teachings. Meaning the teachings are more valued when presented from the western view, and devalued from the tradition. This became apparent nearly a decade ago, when I attended a meeting of ‘Vedic Scholars’ at Swami Dayananda’s ashram in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania. This was a meeting on preserving the tradition for future generations of Hindu’s. During this meeting, I suggested that Hindu’s must reclaim their yogic heritage before it is too late. After all, yoga is one of the shad darshanas of Hinduism. I was immediately told ‘Let them have yoga!’ by a gentleman. And let them have yoga we did. Today, yoga is overseen not by Swami Orders, not by Rishi’s, not by Guru’s, not by Yogi’s and often not by anyone within the tradition. Rather it is overseen as far as authorization by the ‘Yoga Alliance’, the current major certification organization for yoga globally. But in all fairness, the conflict goes further back then the appearance of the Yoga Alliance. The roots to this go back much further, with some of the greatest damage coming from within Hinduism itself.Ironically, the Christian teachings attempt to modify the Hindu mind into a more pacifist mentality, removing the Kshatriya (warrior), intellectual Kshatriya or traditional Hindu mindset of inquiry. Once the pacifist mentality is established and the former Hindu is indoctrinated into Christianity, the system begins a well developed process of rekindling the Kshatriya in order to convert other members into the religion. Ironically, the true intellectual Kshatriya does not become awakened in the Hindu/Christian model, as often those attempting to convert have little understanding of the teachings and/or simply parrot the dogma which they have been taught. These often stimulate a joyful Kshatriya or ‘loving desire’ to save one from the lies of the world and to share the only real truth.With the most insidious attempts being to state that Jesus is the Vedic Prajapati, which in reality violates the dogma of Christianity and 10 commandments of the Old Testament, but it appears that any violation of dogma is acceptable if conversion is a possibility. Ironically, the polar opposite is true of fundamentalist Islamic conversion which focuses upon ignorance. An example would the cleric who recently taught the earth was a stationary object and the Sun revolved around it.[ix]Additionally, the concept of looking to the west is further compounded by a process understood within India for thousands of years-Samskara. As samskaras start from a young age and are influenced by school. An excessive amount of the Hindu educational system is rooted in Christian schools. Years within this Christian school system generates powerful samskaras or impressions within the mind. Once established within the mind, these samskaras cannot be truly removed until one has achieved enlightenment, though the strongest and bravest of Hindus can use the intellect or techniques from Yoga to reduce or minimize these influences. Of all the assaults upon Hinduism, this is clearly the most powerful and insidious.Though certainly there are those such as Swami Dayananda, Baba Ramdev and others that have become outspoken about the importance and value of Hinduism. While the proto-image faithful would argue that we are entering into a ‘new-age’ of spiritual realization, and are moving beyond the teachings of Hinduism. In reality, from the position of the tradition, we are only moving further into the Kali Yuga, as humanity generally and falsely equates technology with spiritual expansiveness.Hinduism receives no respect.This became obvious to me while watching several discussions regarding religious pluralism on CNN. I cannot say I have ever seen Hinduism represented in any discussion on religious pluralism, though it is possible I simply missed one of the few times it occurred. This is simply not the case for the other major religions of the world, as the Abrahmic faiths are always represented especially Islam and Christianity. It appears, at times, as if Hinduism simply does not exist.This mentality has birthed a ‘spiritual but not Hindu’ mentality among groups in the west, which is somewhat concerning as the reality is they are simply practicing one or two branches of Hinduism. But the issue extends beyond mere self identification or news acknowledgment of Hinduism. IA dangerous message is being presented to the world, namely that only violent religions or religions with a known history of violence are worthy of representation and having a voice. This requires that Hinduism cultivate inroads to make sure the religion is represented in the media globally in a fair and equal way. According to Hinduism Facts:24% of U.S. citizens believe in reincarnation and 1/3 of all deaths now chose cremation.[xi]According to Statistics Brain Research Institute:Over 15 million people practice yoga in the just the United States.[xii]CNN estimates this number is more like 30 million as of the international yoga day. [xiii]Given the fact that yoga is a shad dharshana in Hinduism, the reality is that Hinduism could be one of the fastest growing religions, and should be close to the largest religion in the world, especially when combined with Buddhism which was based in Hinduism and is a dharmic tradition as well. [xiv] This births many important and concerning questions, ‘Will Hinduism continue to be pacifist or will it give rise to a militant Hindu?’ The answer to this question has far reaching consequences and could completely change Hinduism as it is known today. Or will Hindu birth a new type of teacher, one that is willing to stand up for Hinduism and will a Hindu voice emerge demanding equal representation on the global stage and among the global media?There are efforts with the movement called the Intellectual Kshatriya, which mediates between the pacifist and violent extremes. To the best of my knowledge this was first suggested by David Frawley (Acharya Vamadeva Shastri) in 1996.[xv] This concept has been embraced by Rajiv Malhotra or is certainly embraced by his followers. This no doubt will introduce conflict and partitioning within Hinduism as Gandhi generally rejected the idea of Kshatriya. Yet, some have suggested he was a type of intellectual Kshatriya, though quite different from the modern models of intellectual Kshatriya that are emerging, and far removed from the kshatriya’s of the Bhagavad Gita.[xvi] Frawley’s model for the intellectual Kshatriya is, “They should be skillful in language, dialogue and debate, not apologetic or compromising; satyam eva jayate. They should emphasize the power of viveka or yogic discernment as their guiding force.”[xvii] The intellectual Kshatriya model is supported in the ancient tradition but should be combined with political powers, as the ancient tradition did support the political/warrior groups together.

UNITED NATIONS: Non-communicable diseases like cardiovascular, diabetes and cancer can cost the Indian economy a whopping $6.2 trillion during the 2012-2030 period, a UN report has said, warning about the spread of such diseases in rapidly urbanising countries like India and China. "Non-communicable Diseases (NCDs) present not only a threat to human health in cities, but also have significant economic implications," said the 'Global Report on Urban Health: Equitable, heal .Between 2014 and 2050, China is expected to add an additional 292 million people to its cities, while in India that figure is estimated at 404 million.The report warned that inadequate planning for the "inevitable increase in urbanisation" in India is creating a socially and environmentally "unsustainable" situation. "The cost of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, chronic respiratory diseases and mental health conditions has been estimated at $27.8 trillion for China and $6.2 trillion for India during 2012-2030," it said.InChina and India, cardiovascular disease and mental health conditions present the greatest economic threats, followed by respiratory diseases and cancer. China's losses exceed those of India's as the impact of lost labour and physical capital is greater in higher-income countries, the report said. F

Irreparable loss to India and the world. The callous and shameful manner in which we disregard our heritage makes one wonder whether we should pack off everything of value to museums abroad. Our apathetic politicos despite the mentioned warnings,have done b*gger all.Mr.Modi should sack those babus and even the minister responsible for such a priceless loss.This is a national catastrophe.

This also beggars the Q why we've not bought/acquired specialized fire-fighting-cm maritime patrol aircraft like the Beriev amphibs. One was demonstrated some years ago at a BLR air show.We've had so many fires even in urban areas (I remember one in Calcutta) where fire engines were unable to reach the scene because of traffic,narrow streets,etc. Forest fires are another annual disaster further reducing our fast disappearing forest cover.Every state should have its own fire-fighting aircraft for such emergencies in a ready state just like the fire services.

Fire guts Delhi's natural history museum Blaze severely damages six-storey building with fire service reporting that water system not working Firefighters try to extinguish a blaze that broke out in the natural history museum in Delhi. Photograph: Rajat Gupta/EPA

Vidhi Doshi in MumbaiTuesday 26 April 2016

The entire collection at Delhi’s natural history museum has been destroyed in a fire, officials have confirmed.

The blaze, which began sometime after 1.30am on Tuesday, burned through the upper part of the museum, where the museum’s collection was housed.

Firefighters were able to bring the flames under control before it reached the museum offices on the ground floor, mezzanine and first floor.

A spokesperson from Delhi’s fire service told the Guardian that the call was taken at about 2am, adding: “The museum was closed at the time so there were no casualties.”

“We are still not sure how the fire started but eyewitnesses say it started on the top of the building. The water system in the building was not working, and we had to arrange for water to be brought from a nearby metro station – that was the reason there was so much damage. If the water was working we could have saved a lot more of the building.”

Two firefighters were injured, but both have been released from hospital.

One of the highlights of the collection was an irreplaceable bone from a sauropod dinosaur, which was an estimated 160 million years old. It may have belonged to one of the largest animals to have walked the earth.

Rahul Khot, the curator of the Bombay Natural History Society’s collection, said: “This is an irreversible loss. Museums are not made up overnight; it takes effort over decades to collect, research and curate a museum.

Khot said it could take decades before a new collection for the museum was amassed again. “These are invaluable items. All museums have things which are very old, and very hard to put a monetary value on,” he said.

“This is a big loss for society and the nation. Many people use museums for education. It can’t be remade overnight.”

Plans to move the museum’s collection to a state-of-the-art facility were under way after a scathing report in 2012 by the government’s public accounts committee raised concerns about the maintenance of the museum.

A parliamentary panel had criticised the environment ministry for the “pathetic functioning” of the museum.

The minister of environment, who visited the remains of the museum on Tuesday morning, said: “I have asked for an energy and fire audit of all establishments of the ministry across the country.

“Plans will be made for how the museum is to be restored. First we have to assess the loss, then we can decide how to restore the museum.”

According to a spokesperson for the environment ministry, the building in which the collection was housed was managed by Ficci, a lobby group for Indian businesses.

Ficci and authorities at the natural history museum could not be reached for comment.

The museum, which was established in 1972, had a collection of preserved butterflies and reptiles, taxidermy, and a life-sized model of a dinosaur.

Depiction of a wrong map of India like showing Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK) or the state of Arunachal Pradesh as not a part of India on any online or electronic platform or physical documents could mean a stiff jail term of seven years along with an heavy fine of up to Rs 100 Crore, as per a new law being proposed by the Narendra Modi government.

India's capital, New Delhi, ranked as the most polluted mega-city in the world, and the 14th most polluted of all 3,000 cities and towns included in the ranking.The country is also home to the second most polluted city in the world: Gwalior, in central India. It is topped only by Zabol, in Iran, which often suffers blinding dust storms.The cities were ranked by the daily average concentration of PM2.5, particles in the air less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, which are believed to pose the gravest health risks, because they can burrow deep in a person’s lungs. The WHO used statistics reported by governments or local agencies and included only cities where regular air quality readings were available.Zabol had an average daily PM2.5 reading of 217; Gwalior’s was 176. The landlocked Indian cities of Allabahad, Patna, Raipur and Ludhiana all had average readings of 122 or higher.The U.S. city with the most serious air pollution – Visalia, Calif. – had an average reading of 18, too low to even qualify as one of the 1,000 dirtiest cities.Beijing, often associated with foul air, ranked 59th in the database.India’s growing economy, surging use of coal and fossil fuels and lack of strong environmental regulations have contributed to a marked rise in air pollution over the last decade. Wood burning, emissions from cars and power plants, and dust kicked up by driving on unpaved roads are all sources of PM2.5 – and all of those pollutants are in abundance in India’s fast-developing cities.In 2014, New Delhi ranked worst among major cities in the WHO database. The city this year launched a pilot effort to restrict most private vehicles to driving only on alternate days, an initiative that has brought mixed results.The central government has introduced new emissions standards for thermal power plants and vehicles. But environmental groups have raised alarm over other government policies that could worsen air pollution, including a growing reliance on coal-based energy.“Air pollution is a national crisis, and demands a concerted national action plan in response,” Sunil Dahiya, a campaigner for Greenpeace India, said in a statement.Although cities in India, China, Saudi Arabia and other developing countries fared worst on the list, the WHO found that more than half the people in cities it surveyed were living with PM2.5 levels that were 2.5 times or more higher than U.N. guidelines recommend. Only about 16% of the total urban population it surveyed lived in places where the air quality met U.N. standards.

'The condition of some Adivasi hamlets is worse than Somalia, worse than what the prime minister described.''There are instances when Adivasis have to demolish the hut they live in to bury the dead as they do not have any other place to bury their dear ones.''There are tens of thousands of Adivasis who do not have land, a house or even good food to eat.''What kind of human development are you talking about?'

At his election rally in Thiruvananthapuram on May 8, Prime Minister Narendra Modi commented that the condition of Adivasi children in Kerala is worse than that of Somalian children.Modi's comments provoked an uproar in Kerala and the hashtag #pomoneModi which literally meant get lost Modi, was trending on Twitter.Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy threatened to file a defamation case against the PM for insulting the state and its people.Then came the Facebook post by Kerala's well-known tribal leader C K Janu supporting Modi and criticising Chandy for not seeing the reality.C K Janu is contesting the assembly election from Sultan Battery in north Kerala with the Bharatiya Janata Party's backing.She is the leader of the Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha, a social movement that has been agitating since 2001 for the redistribution of land to the landless tribal people in Kerala.In 2016, she formed the political party, the Janathipahya Rashtriya Sabha and is contesting the Kerala assembly election as a part of the National Democratic Alliance.On the final day of campaigning, C K Janu, left, below, spoke over the telephone to Shobha Warrier/Redfiff.com from her constituency.After the prime minister was widely criticised for his comparison of Attapady with Somalia, you wrote on Facebook that there were 100 Somalias in Attapady...Yesterday (May 13), an Adivasi woman's two children died here. Do you know why? Because they didn't have proper, nutritious food. This is not an isolated incident.Incidents like this are widespread and happening regularly. The situation is scary, but nobody wants to talks about it.Those living outside these areas do not know how these people live. Most of them do not even have proper houses; they live under plastic cover.They live in such pathetic conditions that they have no house, no food and not even proper paths to walk in some of the interior areas.When I tread through such terrain and reach where they live, I feel horrible to even ask for votes.Does anyone have the right to ask their support? The condition in which they live is extremely pitiable.On one side, Kerala boasts of unenviable growth and Kerala tops the country in human development index also...

TNN & Agencies | Aug 6, 2008, 03.04 AM ISTTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Pictures of a turbaned Joseph and sari-clad Mary with baby Jesus in an "Indianised" version of the Bible is set to create waves across the country. In a unique experiment, the Catholic Church is coming out with a version of the Bible with verses from ancient Indian texts like the Upanishads and Vedas to explain the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.This is an unprecedented attempt to encourage a contextual reading and understanding of the Bible, says the church spokesman, Paul Thelakat."The Biblical text remains the same but verses from Vedas and Upanishads have been used to interpret Christian teachings," says Thelakat. As far as Catholics are concerned, they have to live and interpret their Christian faith and scriptures within the given culture, he adds.Thiruvananthapuram Archbishop Sosa Pakiam, in his preface to the Bible, says a unique feature of the new Bible is that it has many references to the spiritual message and Biblical values found in the scriptures of other great Indian religions.There are 24 line drawings, including those of mosque, temple and church with slippers outside, by the late Christopher Coelho. The New Community Bible is the product of a project commenced in 1990 by a team of 30 Biblical scholars.Approved by the Catholic Bishops' Council of India, the book will be published by a Mumbai-based Christian publishing house, says Thelkat."There are at least 70 references to Bhagawad Gita, Mira Bhai, Gandhiji, Gitanjali and Vedas," says Thelakat. For instance, to illustrate Mary Magdalene's sentiments for the resurrected Jesus, the book invokes Mira Bai's immortal couplets in praise of Krishna."Treasure in heaven" as mentioned in Matthew 6:19,21, has been explained using the Bhagavad Gita's call to disinterested action: "Work alone is your proper business never the fruits it may produce" (2:47). Does this mean the Church now accepts the teachings from Hindu scriptures?

(iconoclasm (countable and uncountable, pluraliconoclasmsThe belief in, participation in, or sanction of destroying religious icons and other symbols or monuments, usually with religious or political motives.)

Now only if a stone was thrown at a church then the president of USA had given a strong lecture on human rights.

But here the violent are on video and actually in police force! Therefore surely there is no threat to selective secularism and international community does not have to have strong lecture from the president of USA.

I think it is in interest of India to have some things very clearly spelled out* the president of USA, the Vatican chief and such people have to be EJ pasand.* human rights orgs can be mouthpieces of the Vatican and such international exclusivists in guise of being secular.* outside selective secular cabal, no one is safe even if perpetrators are on video.* the selective secularist cabal will cover the back of such people by being silent, and actually even encourage barbarism in legit uniform ( police uniform here) by controlling media and propaganda with silence/ignorance while claiming selective secularism.

In such a scenario it is utmost important to not have media under control of selective exclusivist super-groups nationally and internationally.

If I remember correctly, NaMo had spelled out warning kan khol ke so there has to some communication channel for notification of such incidents thereby promt response from GoI.

superbly written imo - the stark contrast between the bravery and spirit of the jawans, NCOs and JCOs vs the incompetence of the political generals and the worthlessness of the delhi political establishment makes the blood boil.

Sad, sad chapter in the history of Bharat, and one that must never be repeated again.

First of all Kunal Verma is a BRFite.Secondly with Congress lighting strikes again and again at same spot.Because of compromised leadership.MMS showed how bad it is.

On 19 May, the Congress Party must have placed the champagne bottles back in the larder, given the scale of its setbacks. Two states that were among the handful that it still ruled, Assam and Kerala, went over to the opposition, while in the case of Tamil Nadu, its addition to the DMK fold was not sufficient to compensate for the hold that Chief Minister Jayalalithaa still has among voters in her state, especially women. Even Pondicherry has been much closer a race than in the past. Why has the party done so badly? An explanation vests within the system of Nehruvian secularism that the party has embraced since the 1950s. According to this construct, which has as little to do with secularism as Wahhabism has to do with genuine Islam, the most vicious and toxic variants of communalism are kosher, provided they emanate from religious minorities in India, principally Muslims, the community that got divided into two states in 1947. Mahatma Gandhi’s encouragement to the religious frenzy witnessed during the 1919-22 Khilafat agitation, of which the Mahatma was among the most enthusiastic supporters, was a historical blunder that unfortunately has been repeated all too often since then. This was to regard extremists as being the only representatives of Islam, which, in fact, is a religion not of conflict but of peace. The Khilafat movement resulted in such aftershocks as the Moplah massacres in Kerala and the deepening of divisive tendencies within the Muslim community in India, which subsequently allowed M.A. Jinnah to win millions of adherents (mostly in UP and Bihar) for Winston Churchill’s plan of vivisecting India. After the 1945 war, London ensured that Sri Lanka and Myanmar got separated from control by Delhi, and later on, that Pakistan was formed. Jawaharlal Nehru carried such a lessening of geographical boundaries further by allowing Pakistan to retain a third of Kashmir and rejecting the offer from Oman for Gwadar and from the Ranas for Nepal. But for Sardar Patel and V.P. Menon, there would have been half-a-dozen more independent states within the present boundaries of India, including Hyderabad and possibly Travancore. However, the Sardar soon passed away, and being insufficiently sugary in his praise of Nehru, V.P. Menon got sidelined in favour of more emollient officials, who were rewarded by Nehru by the retention of the entire structure of colonial laws and governance of the British raj by Nehru and, of course, his successors. The Manmohan Decade has been in many ways as toxic for the future of India as 1919-22 was, and for the same reason, which is the untrammelled encouragement given to minority communalism in the guise of promoting “secularism”. The Congress has not been alone in such a flawed strategy. In the past, Jyoti Basu used it in Bengal, facilitating a flood of immigrants from Bangladesh and integrating them into his state. Both Mulayam Singh as well as Lalu Yadav have been enthusiastic backers of Nehruvian secularism, ignoring the growth of communal passions within select communities while expressing surprise and displeasure at the reaction such events inevitably created within the Hindu majority. In the 2016 Assembly polls, Mamata Banerjee has succeeded with her Jyoti Basu strategy, but in the coming years, certainly before 2019, a Badruddin Ajmal will emerge in Bengal who will siphon off enough Muslim votes to ensure a stellar BJP performance in the Lok Sabha polls, which is the only election in India that really matters. In Kerala, the Hindus (who are still a majority) have almost entirely left the Congress, even while Muslims have gravitated to the Muslim League and Christians to the Kerala Congress, leaving Rahul Gandhi’s party with only a very thin layer of supporters. In Assam, the Muslims that Tarun Gogoi was relying upon to flock to his standard went over to Ajmal, while Hindus turned away from his party because of its adherence to Nehruvian secularism, in which Hindus have become the victims of discrimination (for example in the shape of control of temples by the state, or edicts such as the RTE), about the few countries in the world besides examples such as Bahrain where the majority community suffers in this manner. What the Mahatma omitted to consider in his enthusiasm for the Khilafat movement (which has interestingly been revived in the present time by Abubakr Al Baghdadi) was that it would open the way for extreme communal tendencies and organisations to emerge. Which is what has happened during the decade of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who was open about the fact that for his government, only minorities were the focus, rather than the population as an entirety. The Congress is being outflanked by extreme communal groups such as those led by the Owaisis or the Ajmals, which is precisely what took place during the 1920s and later. BJP spokespersons claim on television that it was “development” which won them Assam, when the reason for much of their votes in the just concluded Assembly polls was the fact that this is the only party which—once Narendra Modi emerged as its undisputed leader in 2013—has repudiated Nehruvian secularism. Thus far, of course, it does not seem to have found the time to ensure that discriminatory and communal laws such as the RTE be replaced with legislation that is wholly secular i.e. religion neutral. Certainly there ought to be an RTE, but the sacrifices for such a step within the pool of private schools should be shared by all rather than (as Manmohan Singh decreed) only by Hindus. Hopefully, such abominations will end before the 2019 polls, as also such injustices as Hindu temples being under the state and hence the playthings of politicians, of course provided Andhra Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu agrees to cede control over Tirupati, something he was reluctant to do when A.B. Vajpayee was the Prime Minister. Narendra Modi is not Vajpayee. Had voters believed him to be so, they would not have given him the mandate they did in 2014. What is needed is to ensure genuine secularism on the scale of France, where religion and the state have been separated in a most wholesome manner. Those in the US or in the EU who receive Wahhabi funding from Qatar or Saudi Arabia may protest, but if India is to avoid fresh attempts at partition, it is crucial to the future to replace Nehruvian secularism with the genuine variety. As for the Congress, it dwindled from a party with the support of a majority of voters to a partyrelying on minority votes to the present situation. Rahul Gandhi needs to understand that in the 21st century, to continue to embrace the policies of his paternal great-grandfather and grandmother would be to ensure the fulfilment of Prime Minister Modi’s call for a Congress-mukt Bharat.

A rejoinder to the heroine of hypocrisy ,pseudo-intellectual fecal parasite ,that preys upon its mother,India,and who masturbates her ego with anti-Indian public diatribes to titillate the fancies of the Western world.

I'm neither surprised nor concerned with your decision of joining the 'club' of filmmaker, writers and others who have returned their awards to express their protest against what they term as the growing intolerance in India. Such acts probably give you a sense of shallow satisfaction of being intellectually relevant in today's competitive market of left ideologues.

However, I was curious about the reasons you offered for your theatrics this time, and so I read your piece "Why I Am Returning My Award" published in The Huffington Post. In fact, I read it three times to understand if you really do have an authentic critique of the present government. Honestly, I struggled to find a constructive reason. The most telling statement I found was this: "I am very pleased to have found (from somewhere way back in my past) a National Award that I can return, because it allows me to be a part of a political movement."

"On one hand, you keep pointing fingers at all the organised institutions that govern society, but on the other, you never have an alternate path to offer."

Let's question your reasoning: Can a political movement (which you want to join), logically, exist in the world (in terms of political ideology) that you believe in?

Since the time you started airing your views on a public platform through fiction and non-fiction writings, you invented two enemies to attack: the Indian state and the entire political class (except the Left parties, given your extreme left leanings). You clubbed both those two concepts - the Indian state and the political platform -- with the word "Hindu". You took an obvious advantage of this term to carve a niche amongst the drawing room, left-liberal intellectuals.

On various occasion you spoke of having no belief in the idea of a nation-state. You proudly call yourself "an independent, mobile republic". We all know that since the start of modern civilisation, the concept of a nation-state is the only tool available to manage a society. If in your view, even this tool has become obsolete then do you have any other model to propose? Absolutely not!

Not even that, you're an ardent critique of parliamentary democracy as well. For you, it's just a house of thugs and apparatchiks where they perpetrate injustice against poor, Dalits, Adivasis and minorities (Muslims and Christians).

You mockingly say that the Indian state is even worse than Pakistan or any non-democracy in terms of dealing with its people. According to your enlightened view, people from Kashmir and the North-Eastern states are forced to live under Hindu colonisation. After your media-hyped visit to the Maoist-hit district of Dantewada, you famously said that the Indian state was waging a war against its own people, and that the army was using "sophisticated weapons" to wipe out the poor, Maoist warriors.

Everybody thus knows that you derive pleasure in calling India a police Hindu republic. Since Modi became prime minister, you've added one more adjective to that list, which is fascist (in fact, "beyond fascist", according to you); that means now India is a Police, Hindu and Fascist Republic. Your hatred is limited not only to institutions but it attaches to all those luminaries as well whose ideas define India; on the other hand, you never shy away from glorifying those who work against the Indian state. You even call Gandhi a racist. When it comes to the actions of terrorists like Hafiz Saeed, you draw parallels between him and certain Hindu leaders.

"I hope to see many more theatrics from you. Because the more you thrive, flourish and do what you're good at doing, the more Indian democracy will pass the test of its resilience..."

What is evident from all this is that you're an incredible model of "pseudo-intellectualism" who lives in India, yet does not miss any opportunity to defame the country at every national or international forum where you're invited to speak.

Another aspect of you is equally intriguing. On one hand, you keep pointing fingers at all the organised institutions (nation-state, democracy, free-market economics and religion) that govern society, but on the other, you never have an alternate path to offer. Now, how on earth can anyone take you seriously for your paragon of virtue-like analysis of the socio-political system?

Finally, which political movement do you want to join? After all, you don't believe in any present state institution or in an idea of governance that gives rights to people to get into any such movement. Is it not like a person who breathes but says he does not need a nose to survive?

Any political movement can only be conceived within an institutional framework of nation-state and democracy. In your own manufactured world, only illogical protest can happen to steal temporary media attention.

I hope to see many more theatrics from you. Because the more you (and others like you) thrive, flourish and do what you're good at doing, the more Indian democracy will pass the test of its resilience, and it'll rise up to a new level.

Shocking and shameful incident at UCLA, where an Indian techie killed a professor, and his own wife/ex-wife.

One expects a lot better from Indians. To repeat, we are supposed to be people with large reserves of spiritual, moral and philosophical strength, not short fuses who go off at the slightest spark. Come on! Indians committing suicide over lesser exam marks, over a relationship break up, or killing because of some academic dispute, is absolutely repulsive. It doesn't leave the most elevated impression of Indians.

Lets wait and see what comes out over the next few days from the investigation...

This is a matter that needs more discussion, perhaps not in the US-India thread - but either on this one or a thread specifically for NRI matters.

My personal feeling is that this horrific incident points to a potential devastating result of erosion of typical Indian / East Asian 'community belonging' culture towards the more individualistic culture of the West. Where West Asian misfits carry out terrorist activities DUE to their not assimilating with the West and maintaining the same community attitudes towards kafirs as in their home culture - East Asian and Indian misfits may implode due to the erosion of of their traditional community-shame oriented morals that are a key component of societal glue in the home societies.

Of late, I’ve seen you deliver some lovely speeches; like the wonderful one you delivered when Tim Cook, Apple CEO visited Hyderabad and today I saw another one you delivered at TIE conference in Silicon Valley. I love the way you deliver those speeches.

But, in every speech; you refer to Telangana as “The Youngest State of India” and this statement of yours makes me think and gives rise to a lot of questions…

If Telangana is really the ‘Youngest State’ and the new born state, then

How does it have a Mega Capital ready and operating from day 1?

How does the new state has a Metro-project ready to be launched?

How does it have Microsoft, Google and the IT eco-system in which other tech giants are ready to jump in?

How does it have the world class ISB, IIIT, IIT Hyderabad producing great talents?

How does it have one of the best Airports in the country and amazing road connectivity?

How does it have Surplus, well indeed excess budget ?

Last but definitely not the least, how does the ‘youngest state’ have a mega cyber city fully functioning and generating thousands of crores of taxes for your party to spend on advertising ?

None of these qualities seem to be that of a “New Born State” or “Youngest State of India” and something is definitely wrong here.

I’ll tell you what actually is the youngest state in the country is; a state that the country itself is not ready to help. The worst part of the entire scenario is, the Prime Minister of the country himself is not ready to help the state; only to see the chances of his political party grow in the state.

Mr. KTR, that state is Andhra Pradesh and I have a few more questions; whose answers will perhaps enlighten you as to why Andhra Pradesh is the youngest state in the country.

Why do I have a feeling that Andhra Pradesh is the youngest state that the country has to take care of like a budding plant until it is strong and firm and independent?

Why do I have a feeling that the fact that Andhra Pradesh doesn’t have a capital to function from, makes it the youngest state?

Why do I have a feeling that Andhra Pradesh, whose employees aren’t ready to move to its capital for the lack of facilities and its CM is sleeping in bus and operating from a temporary building is the new state ?

Why do I have a feeling that a state trying hard to build the IIT, IIM and other institutes, for which the funds given by the Government of India for these very institutes won’t even cover the building of boundary walls of the institutes, is the newborn state?

Why do I have a feeling that the state without IT sector, Industries and a state that is in a Budget Crisis every quarter is the new state?

Why do I have a feeling that the state that was deceived by the Govt of India and is struggling to build everything from scratch with the help of Countries around the world while the very own Country is stuck accessing Political Advantages is the “Youngest State”?

My anger is on those claiming the Youngest state tag and the contradictory richness.

My anger is on the Country and its Citizens ignoring the Newborn state and left it to one hard working person with no support within the Country.

My anger is on the Country and its Citizens who are constantly ignoring the state and left the entire burden of making the state a success on the shoulders of one hardworking man with no support from the Country.

Keep giving those great speeches after clarifying on the Youngest State line.